on 5/27/01 7:25 AM, Ian White, G3SEK at G3SEK@ifwtech.com wrote:
> That doesn't matter - you MUST still get the
> same results as the other two viewpoints. If you don't, then at least
> one of your analyses has to be incorrect.
>
> Even a half-baked analysis can be made to look good on its own home
> territory. That's the easy part. But one of the key scientific tests for
> any idea is to make it work in hostile territory - in this case, the
> viewpoints that you normally *don't* like to use.
>
> Nobody has yet done this in a totally convincing way for the transmitter
> conjugate matching problem - because if they had, the debate would be
> finished.
Ahh, but Ian, it has been shown that calculation of efficiency using a
Thevenin source and calculation of efficiency using a Norton source does not
give the same answer.
Therefore, since Norton and Thevenin sources are equivalent, the concept of
calculating system efficiency based on them is flawed.
The reason WHY this is the case is something I've not been able to fully
grasp nor have I seen good reason from anyone else. The best I can come up
with is that once you start to calculate efficiency you are starting to go
inside the model of the source and using it for things it was not intended.
You can't use the model to model itself. It's weak, but so far I lack
better answers.
73,
Jon
NA9D
-------------------------------------
Jon Ogden
NA9D (ex: KE9NA)
Member: ARRL, AMSAT, DXCC, NRA
http://www.qsl.net/ke9na
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
|